of what the accepts header says.
Does anyone have any idea when this will be implemented? It doesn't
apppear to be in edge rails yet.
Rails edge + plugins/simply_restful works exactly as described. My
suggestion would be to check out the plugin if there's nothing in the
core.
--
On 23/06/2006, at 9:42 AM, anne001 wrote:
Thanks I will try it.
I tried to follow this recipee
http://media.pragprog.com/titles/fr_rr/NoDatabase.pdf
and I got mysql errors with
ruby test/functional/my_controller_controller_test.rb
Trying to follow that tutorial gave me the idea that rails reall
On 23/06/2006, at 7:34 AM, anne001 wrote:
"Rails should be robust on its "minimum requirements" for a basic
controller
and view to work properly."
This was January, it is June. Is there a patch? Can Rails work
without a
database connected?
Umm... have you tried yourself?
$ rails test_si
whole model.
Or alternatively:
%w(name email address).each { |f| @person[f] = params[:person][f] }
-- tim lucas
___
Rails-core mailing list
Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
On 23/04/2006, at 3:09 AM, Kevin Olbrich wrote:
Yeah, I know how to do it that way.
I'm just exploring other options.
The other way to accomplish what you want is to use finder scopes:
http://habtm.com/articles/2006/02/22/nested-with_scope
-- tim
__
I'll file a bug with some tests but for now the patch is below.
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3962
-- tim
___
Rails-core mailing list
Rails-core@lists.rubyonrails.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-core
Other helpers use the :url and :html option convention
(remote_form_tag comes to mind)... and considering you have to
handle builder options, url options and html options I think the
old API is the cleanest syntax:
form_for :comment, comment, :url => named_route_url, :html =>
{ 'id' => 's
On 26/02/2006, at 3:14 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
form_for : comment, comment, :action => 'update' do; end
=>
I can see that it's broken, but why do you think it needs to be
reverted?
Well for one, the current implementation can't handle named routes.
form_for : comment, comment, n
On 26/02/2006, at 3:18 AM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
No love for those using named routes and form_for in trunk?
form_for(:comment, comment, new_comment_url
(article.hash_for_permalink)) do |f|
=> can't convert Symbol into String
also the docs are no longer valid as it doesn't us
nding)
fields_for(object_name, object, url_options, &proc)
concat('', proc.binding)
end
ah... actually no... because you need to support the :builder option.
So should we be returning back to the old syntax that uses :url?
-- tim lucas
__
10 matches
Mail list logo
